State Vs. Rama Ram @ Rama and ors

State vs Rama Ram @ Rama and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided May 28, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1143640

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1143640
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: May 28, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Rama Ram @ Rama and ors

Excerpt

.....bali, district pali acquitting the accused persons from the charge relating to offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 120-b ipc. the appeal is barred by limitation from 73 days. an application is also preferred as per the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. while examining the application preferred under section 5 of the limitation act, we have also looked into merits of the case. the prosecution case is solely based on [2].the evidence of last seen as adduced by p.w.21 sawa ram and the evidence adduced by p.w.5 mansha ram. p.w.21 sawa ram stated that on the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m., he saw the accused persons sitting with the deceased near barjodi hill. this witness accepted that there was no light near barjodi hill and at the relevant time, it was dark. this witness also accepted that he was not knowing accused rama ram earlier. p.w.5 mansha ram stated that rama am gave a sum of rs.30,000/- to the accused persons to cause murder of hindu ram, however, no foundation for such statement is laid down by this witness. the trial court did not find these witnesses trustworthy. we have also examined the statement made by the prosecution witnesses aforesaid. so far as p.w.21 sawa ram is concerned, it is the position admitted that he was not knowing the accused persons and he saw 3 persons sitting near barjodi hill, where no light was available, as such, the trial court rightly arrived at the conclusion that this witness is neither trustworthy nor by relying upon the evidence adduced by him, any conviction could have been recorded. same is the position with regard to other witness mansha ram (p.w.5).the statement given by p.w.5 on its face is quite vague and the evidence adduced by him is not at all sufficient to record the [3].conviction, as such, we do not find any wrong with the findings arrived by the trial court. accordingly, the application under section 5 of the limitation act as.....

Full Judgment

[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

D.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.160/2013 State of Rajasthan Versus Rama Ram @ Rama & ORS.Date of Order :: 28.05.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr.Vishnu Kachchhawaha - Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT : This application is preferred to have leave to appeal the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali acquitting the accused persons from the charge relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC.

The appeal is barred by limitation from 73 days.

An application is also preferred as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application.

While examining the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have also looked into merits of the case.

The prosecution case is solely based on [2].the evidence of last seen as adduced by P.W.21 Sawa Ram and the evidence adduced by P.W.5 Mansha Ram.

P.W.21 Sawa Ram stated that on the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m., he saw the accused persons sitting with the deceased near Barjodi Hill.

This witness accepted that there was no light near Barjodi Hill and at the relevant time, it was dark.

This witness also accepted that he was not knowing accused Rama Ram earlier.

P.W.5 Mansha Ram stated that Rama am gave a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the accused persons to cause murder of Hindu Ram, however, no foundation for such statement is laid down by this witness.

The trial court did not find these witnesses trustworthy.

We have also examined the statement made by the prosecution witnesses aforesaid.

So far as P.W.21 Sawa Ram is concerned, it is the position admitted that he was not knowing the accused persons and he saw 3 persons sitting near Barjodi Hill, where no light was available, as such, the trial court rightly arrived at the conclusion that this witness is neither trustworthy nor by relying upon the evidence adduced by him, any conviction could have been recorded.

Same is the position with regard to other witness Mansha Ram (P.W.5).The statement given by P.W.5 on its face is quite vague and the evidence adduced by him is not at all sufficient to record the [3].conviction, as such, we do not find any wrong with the findings arrived by the trial court.

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application seeking leave to appeal are dismissed.

[ATUL KUMAR JAIN]., J.

[GOV IND MATHUR]., J.

Pramod

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties State vs Rama Ram @ Rama and ors Same Subject Education